Well. What a question, to be sure. You mean that anyone – other than a childfree person – is actually being thought as – dare we say it SELFISH? I suppose since OctoMom launched her litter upon an unsuspecting world, all the navel-gazing is to be expected. But then, before OctoMom (has she got her UN-reality show yet?) there were the Duggars, right? Happily, as I don’t live in the States I don’t have to hear much about them. All the better.
But I digress ever so slightly. This article on BBC Online called Is it selfish to have more than two children? has a distinctly green hue. A leading green campaigner says:
“Parents who have more than two children are “irresponsible” for placing an intolerable burden on resources and increasing damage to eco-systems,”
Jonathan Porrit of the Optimum Population Trust is saying couple should think about the environment and responsibility when it comes to decisions to have children. Policy Director Rosamund McDougall even says:
“The more couples decide to have just one or two children, or even remain childless, the more they can relieve pressures on rapidly deteriorating ecosystems and alleviate demand for dwindling energy and food resources,”
Gasp! So could it be that those decide to remain “childless” aka childfree are now being recognized as those who are actually doing something about the environment by not contribution to its destruction? Perhaps it’s too early to tell.
The green campaigners will get short shrift from the childed though. Mrs Whitehouse and her husband decided to have a large family – 5 kids. she says it’s not as simple as that. She also doesn’t think that having 5 children necessarily puts a burden on the environment. She says all her kids are environmentally aware, but that green issues aren’t going to be top of mind when her daughter have children.
The other women in the article confirm what I’ve always thought… that when it comes to having kids and the environment, the environment will always lose out because having kids (and large families if you can) is what they want to do. Is that selfish? While I’m not advocating for a diktat on how many children people should have, it does bring to light the double standards of some. It’s not the childfree who are selfish… even if the environment wasn’t the reason for not procreating, at least we are not adding to the problem.
I am just waiting for the next childed person to start talking to me about “taking care of the environment.” Or how “green” they are because they “recycle”
Maybe more need to put their money where their mouth is… the conversation about population and the environment still hasn’t been had… because no one really wants to have it. I just think it’s amusing that in some areas selfishness is being allocated somewhere else instead of at the childfree
Thoughts?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=feb99be8-3e59-481e-a74a-5fd208b9b1aa)
Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I remember a loooooong time ago when I was searching for information on “childfree” I came across someone, somewhere who complained about how the childfree might not have children, but they went on vacations on airplanes etc. and thereby ended up doing AT LEAST as much damage to the environment as the childed. This is of course rubbish, but I think it demonstrates the lengths the childed are willing to go to in order to avoid having to turn in their “green card”.
I am childfree, not because I care about the environment, but because I know I am unfit to be a parent. If someone wants to have 5 children, and they are capable – physically, emotionally and financially – of raising them well, then by all means go ahead. But I do wish they would stop claiming they are still so green.
The environment is actually my number one reason not to have kids. I enjoy the finer things in line: I loooove luxurious vacations, power guzzling electronics, disposable cleaning cloths and those pieces of thin wet paper to clean my glasses, meat, long showers and so on. I really don’t want to give all that up, so I only have one option if I want to save the planet: instead of a lot of people sharing very little resources, why not have a few people share a lot of resources? I prefer the latter and therefore I won’t have children.
I’m childfree because I have no interest in children, but a few years ago I remember reading an article (in the NY Times, maybe?) about how much more damage people with children are doing to the world, and it just became another reason on my list. I have no doubt that people with kids do more damage than childfree adults. Parents are exhausted a lot and don’t take the time to recycle, they buy packaged food, the TV is on a lot, they go to amusement parks, they buy unnecessary clothes and toys for their kids…
Sure, you can be a parent and be “green” (look at Barbara Kingsolver, or Les Stroud), but such families are few and far between.
From a purely statistical perspective, yes: having children is selfish and irresponsible.
I was green way before I decided I was CF, but now that I am CF the environment is definitely one of the reasons I’m sure it’s the right thing for me.
Disposable nappies, plastic toys, a bigger car, a bigger house, etc, it makes me cringe every time I see how ungreen most if not all of my childed friends and childed people in general are/become.
It’s hard enough to be green on my own!
In a word: YES. Of course having a child is selfish. One does not have a baby for the betterment of the world or society.
I am an infertile who would love to have a baby, but I don’t delude myself into believing it is for any other reason other than my own desires. My own selfish desires. Which is why I have struggled with the idea of ever doing fertility treatments.
Environmental reasons are why I would stop at one child. My husband and I have discussed this at length and if we ever have a child, we will likely stay with one. It would be enough hard work just to stay as green as possible with one kid. I cannot imagine being green with two or more. Plus, it doesn’t seem right to replace myself with more than one person.
One childfree person does more for the environment than all the recyclers ever born.
I actually saw this article discussed on another blog and the writer said something to the effect that biodegradable plastics and renewable sources of energy would make population control unnecessary.
Erm. Not. The fact is, the more people there are, the less area remains for something called “ecosystem services” — the bacteria, plants, insects, invertebrates and vertebrates which live, reproduce, and die in such ways that soil is created, water is cycled, air is cooled and heated and purified. All creature processes create “pollution,” but these organisms’ life cycles have developed to fit together so closely that byproducts from one species are fodder for another.
The more people there are, the more that ecosystem space is needed for living and working space, and for human food production, none of which contributes to these natural cycles in the forms practiced now.
Our current lifestyle and our current population are possible only because of artificial inputs (like petroleum). One very big part of the reason we’re heading toward trouble is there are so many people that cheap forms of energy are being used up, fast, and pollution is accumulating, fast.
As Miss M pointed out, if there were only a few people around, likely this wouldn’t be such a problem.
Typically, in Nature, when a population exceeds its resources, then a crash results.
But you can bet nobody with kids is going to look around and say “I am partly responsible.”
They’ll be too busy repeating all that garbage about CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE.
this quote made me laugh:
Emma Quinton mother of six “Benefit of a large family is that they learn to share and they do their bit for the planet by never flying long-haul”
They’re CHILDREN for pete’s sake!!!! What’s she saying – that they often used to sneak out in the middle of the night for their London-NewYork long haul, cheap thrills fix, until she put a stop to it by educating them on the environment…?
Is she going to guarantee that even when her kids are all 18 plus, and old enough to do what the hell they damn well like, that they are *never* going to fly long haul??
geeez.
Im sorry but in response to this.. but isnt it a free country? Wy should we only be allowed 2 children, what if i want 3 or 4… what if i had triplets.. would i not be abllowed to keep them? and in response to UKShell… have u ever m dont know how happy theyet these children? You are in their family so why should u say she shouldnt have a large family. They have a perfect life.. know who i know… cuz im there cousin.. so dont start saying tht emma cant have as many kids as she likes. I hope she has loads more!!!
If people don’t voluntarily reduce their family size, it will eventually get to the point where the government will restrict family size for you. It happened in China. If food, water and living space become scarce, your “free country” will disappear before your eyes.
You should be damn grateful the childfree exist, because they’re creating some wiggle room for you and your prolific family.
I am (sorry sorry sorry) not as green as I could be I’m sure. I drive an SUV AND I LIKE IT gas and all. I do buy in bulk to save on packaging and I re-use ‘disposables’ like straws and I get teased for it too. Noting the costs and benifits are much more the reason for me to not want children but thinking about all the mess and garbage generated by a tot only seals that deal. I think of the landfill’s as we speak as I pick up my doggie’s doo in our yard in my biodegradable poo-picker-upper-bags and I still feel guilty.
to Waterbishop – on a side note – Freudian slip or no, you are not “an infertile” as you wrote! You are much much more as a person than simply your ability to procreate! While I don’t know you, I am sure you have many interests and abilities that make you YOU and being infertile is a part of you not the whole. Not that my little opinoin matters but whatever you decide, fertility treatments, adoption, or the CF life, you have to see yourself as more than a pair of ovaries on standby. You don’t have to hate kids to be CF but you can’t be CF and pine away over ‘the kid you always wanted”. It’s a choice, either you want a child or two (or hell eight if you ask the right girl) or you think your life and your goals would be better off without that particular responsibility. Best of luck to you!!
Talkivist
All problems of mankind are due to expansion of the human race.
Minorities are becomming even minor. Soon there will not be any untouched ground on our planet.
Up to now developed countries could expand on behalf of the lesser developed societies. But with increasing population we see more proof of how we start “eating” ourself. The “excess” pool of people increase and I dont think its just because of any financial crisis.
I think the overpopulation has nothing to do with evolution but more with self-destruction.
The world would be a MUCH BETTER place with LESS people in it. As usual we never remove a problem by ignoring it or keep on going in the same wrong direction. If we want to keep on living we need restrictions on how many kids each person could have.
Time to start understand that the CF are not the one being selfish and the CF should be the one with the tax-relief…simply due to environmental concerns.
Lurker:
No shit.
Our (I’m in America so can only talk from that POV) tax system encourages making babies. You get tax cuts when you have them. But I think that, in light of the current environment troubles, you should start being taxed for having people who will use up environment resources.
Enough with encouraging people having more people.
And actually get a tax break for those of us who don’t. It’s like, as long as you have not had a baby, you can continue to get that tax break. But once you have a kid, you have lost that tax break forever and will actually BE TAXED from that point forward.
One thing I want to add: this will never pass. There are more people with children than without and they don’t want to lose their tax breaks.
CFSinceSix:
Personally I dont mind paying my tax even if my “footprints” are less than a childed family. But it would definetly be a good idea to use tax as a mean to reduce the growth in population. If we also reduced benefits for child number 3,4,5…etc..etc…Then people would MAYBE think at least once before they reproduced?!
I live in Europe. Here they talk about how 4 kids are the new trendy symbol of high status. Not exactly the right way to go..should instead called it the new symbol of selfish and mindless behaviour…at least from an environmental point of view..:)
I think it’s ironical how parents manage to con themselves into thinking that having several children has no impact on the environment or that they can push aside by simply “recycling” – that’s if recycling does any good in the first place. When it comes to having children though, anything green comes last, if it figures at all. Until it comes to telling the rest of us what not to do!
I don’t make any particular effort to be “green” but neither do I waste stuff I don’t own a vehicle and more importantly don’t have kids. None of these was a green consideration – I am childfree because I prefer it.
I consider I already pay high enough taxes, which go towards other people having kids – but that’s the tax system for you. I think a tax break for those who don’t have kids would be excellent, but in the meantime I’ve set up a side business, which although it means I work harder at least means I get some of that tax back. I have one life and my intention is to enjoy everything this world has to offer
Per Emma Quinton… well by the time she’s had the 6 kids I would imagine the damage has already been done – it’s an interesting way to justify imagined “greeness”
@Waterbishop – I felt a little sad to hear you describe yourself as an infertile. I hope you take boxermom’s comment to heart… and reject that negative notion. Just because you’re unable to have children doesn’t mean you’re any less a person. And if it was a Freudian slip and you didn’t mean it that way – then that’s good.
Wait a minute… it’s not necessary.
@ Lurker – it will be interesting to see how they’re going to support the “new trendy symbol of 4 kids” with the economy in the state it is now. I presume they’ll be working parents
Btw there will need to be lots and lots of babies created to be future taxpayers… and just look at the tax burden they will be taking on. It is not pretty. They will either need to be keen small business people – or, if they are employed they will be working forever.
CFsincesix, now that is a tax I would definitely support. But you are right, it would never pass.
Boxermom and Britgirl,
I am not pining. Life is too short for that.
Sorry about the label. I do know that being infertile does not encompass my identity. It was not so much a slip as it was just a simpler label. Well, it sounded simpler than non-parent-half by-choice-half-not.
Lurker, I am in the U.S and it is trendy here to have four kids as well. Or rather a status symbol. It’s like a big house or an SUV. If they can afford a bunch of kids, they have them simply to let us all know they can afford them. I think it is mindless from all points of view, not just environmental.
I don’t know, I just don’t see selfish as a bad thing. I’m with Ms. Q. Screw the sharing of meager hand-me-downs with a bawling litter. I like my steaks to be 3 inches thick and my jeans D&G. So to me, I am selfish because I want “weekend” to mean “sex, sleeping in, reading, and gourmet dinner.” I just can’t call someone who is torn to pieces by ungrateful whining snot-balls selfish. Stupid and pitiful, yes, but somehow not selfish. Even if they were initially selfish, once they had the kids and saw that hey, these kids are not a manifestation of my fantasies, they just became passive-aggressive martyrs.
Wow! I just found this blog today. This is the answer to all my dreams! People who feel as I do! I’v spent all day poring over the comments. I think a person who chooses to parent, whether to one, two , three or 18 kids, has made his or her environmental footprint absolutely huge to the point where it would make no difference if they recycled or ate organic foods or used cloth diapers. Think of all the waste that one human creates in his or her lifetime. And we live so long now. We each create and cause immeasurable tonnes of waste, be it, our own crap, and all the things we buy, and eat, and need to survive in the developed world. How many trees are cut down, how many animals slaughtered so that one human being can live? Why create more? I think that all parents are selfish. (My views are admittedly extreme and I keep them to myself for the most part otherwise I would be attacked by an unruly mob of parents and tied to a stake and burned. It’s so not good to talk bad about children these days)
People need to be childfree more than ever, right now. Ecologists estimate that the carrying capacity for humans on the earth is 1 or 2, possibly 3 billion. The world population is now approaching 7 billion. The planet is now 4 to 5 billion over capacity as far as how many humans it can support. Even if everyone just has their “replacement” (two) kids the planet would still be overpopulated. In fact, the population is projected to be 9 billion in the year 2050. What we need is a dramatic reduction in breeding. As it is, the childfree are already outnumbered by people having 2 or 3 kids and then there are people like the “quiverful” movement.
As Einstein said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
‘Nuff said!
Well, CFs are like those who can only see one face of the issues. They may even not like themselves.
The world can not become a better place for living by itself. It is human being that makes the world a better place by their wisdom, education, and work. The environment problem can not be solved by not having children. But it can be solved by not producing/using any kind of weapons and/or explosives. Future generations will be different and will be more wised and fair that can help them live a better life, full of joy and pride.
I don’t care what others feel is selfish. I’m a single guy almost done with college, and I’m trying to adopt a son from the Congo. I don’t plan to get married, I’ve had about three or four dates in my whole life, none of them lasted long. I was raised with several younger sisters, and one older one, I don’t feel I need a wife to raise any sons, or even daughters. I can understand why many countries would not let single guys adopt little girls, but if it turns out I can’t even bring a son home from the Congo, then they should locate all single mothers with almost no income and take their sons away from them and put these boys either with their father, or in the system for quick adoption. Most single women do not possess the emotional insight or experience to make a man out of their son. The Congo is in a lot of peril right now, and I want to be able to save a child from those horrendous living conditions while their laws still allow single men to adopt.